or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Powder Ski Waist and Length Recommendations for a Short Guy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Powder Ski Waist and Length Recommendations for a Short Guy

post #1 of 20
Thread Starter 

I'm a male,  145lbs and 158cm tall (5'2").  Advanced intermediate.  Looking for a second ski for those rare east coast powder days.  Already have the Head Rally's as my daily driver for the typical east coast conditions.  Rather than start a discussion with lots of recommendations on brands and models, I'd like to get some feedback on the sweet spot in terms of someone of my height and weight in terms of length and waist for a powder ski.

post #2 of 20

try the smallest soul7 in 164.  I think that would be a good pick

post #3 of 20

170ish length (depending on amount of rocker) 170 for instance for a Soul7... which could be a great choice for you.  

 

Width is a matter of pure preference. you would probably be just fine in something about 105-110.  

post #4 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finndog View Post
 

170ish length (depending on amount of rocker) 170 for instance for a Soul7... which could be a great choice for you.  

 

Width is a matter of pure preference. you would probably be just fine in something about 105-110.  


This. ^^^^. Don't go short, if you're looking at models with both front and rear rocker, and the high 100's should work very well. If a ski with only front early rise, then mid-60's is better. 

post #5 of 20

I'm a little taller and heavier 5'5" / 150 lbs and I like skis in the high 170s / low 180s, my current pow ski is a Billy Goat 176cm, replaced a Salomon Rocker2 115 178cm. BUt I also enjoyed longer skis like the old Bent Chetler 183cm

 

Some options to look at

 

ON3P Billy Goat 166

Salomon Q 115 168

Line Sick Day 110 172 (line measures very short)

Praxis MVP 173

 

I think you would do great with the salomon q-115 168! It's a nice ski! I think the 168cm is around 111mm underfoot 


Edited by mfa81 - 1/5/15 at 9:15pm
post #6 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the advice.  I was originally thinking that mid-90's waist and 160 height was where I should be, but from the posts above, it would seem the consenus is to go wider and longer.

post #7 of 20

Length:  170-75 

 

Waist: 105-115-ish

post #8 of 20
What size is your daily driver?
post #9 of 20
Thread Starter 

I'm on a Head Supershape Rally 156cm for my daily driver.

post #10 of 20
If you're on a budget the 168 s3 would be about perfect. 170's is a big jump, especially for the NE I'm thinking.
post #11 of 20
Put it this way, the effective edge length on the Rally in 156cm wouldn't be far off the Soul in 180cm when on edge so....
My 163cm Titans have a longer effective edge than my 180cms Sin 7s do, so a minimum 172cm length rockered powder ski wouldn't feel that bad for him surely? I'm the same weight as him incidentally too so.....
post #12 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwr1vwf View Post

If you're on a budget the 168 s3 would be about perfect. 170's is a big jump, especially for the NE I'm thinking.
Heck if the op wants a pair of s3s, I have a pair of s3s 168 ill sell him for a fair price with demo bindings and recently fully tuned. But imho it's a compromise to buy this older ski just to save some money.
post #13 of 20

There are still some 171 Rossi Sickle's out there cheap.  It's a 2012-2013 ski, but not a compromise in the least.

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rossignol-Sickle-Skis-171cm-Twin-Tips-2013-Brand-New-Unused-/360955264493

 

I'd say the new Rossi's like, um, the Soul 7 are the compromise.   :duck:

post #14 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by tball View Post

There are still some 171 Rossi Sickle's out there cheap.  It's a 2012-2013 ski, but not a compromise in the least.

I'd say the new Rossi's like, um, the Soul 7 are the compromise.   duck.gif

icon14.gifpopcorn.gif
post #15 of 20
Lots of options out there. If you're buying with out trying thats a safe one. The ski is harmless in that size, and still loads of pure fun.....just a suggestion.
post #16 of 20
Thread Starter 

Thanks for all the additional feedback.   This gives me some good ideas.  Money is really not an issue given that whatever I choose, I will be holding onto them for the long term given how little use they will actually get.  I will likely buy new and hopefully demo ahead of time, but it's really tough given all the options out there.  One additional consideration is that I would want whatever I choose to also be good in the trees.  Any thoughts on the Salomon Q98 or Rocker2 ?

post #17 of 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by njdiver85 View Post
 

Thanks for all the additional feedback.   This gives me some good ideas.  Money is really not an issue given that whatever I choose, I will be holding onto them for the long term given how little use they will actually get.  I will likely buy new and hopefully demo ahead of time, but it's really tough given all the options out there.  One additional consideration is that I would want whatever I choose to also be good in the trees.  Any thoughts on the Salomon Q98 or Rocker2 ?

both the q line and the rocker2 line are easy skis and good in trees! the only a bit more demanding/charger would be the Q-Lab

 

which rocker2 are you asking about? I'm guessing it's the 100 based on the Q98.

post #18 of 20
Thread Starter 

Yes, comparing the Rocker 2 100 vs the Q98.  

post #19 of 20
Thread Starter 
Had a chance to demo the Soul 7's. Really felt like they were skiing me as opposed to the opposite. Never felt I was in complete control. Then I tried the Volkyl Bridges. Completely different ski I know but they felt pretty good. Anyone know how the Bridges would compare to the Salomon Q98's ?
post #20 of 20

I'm 5'5" and 160lb and recently bought a pair of Sickles in 174 (the older ones with the blue top sheet 106 under foot).I think they measured around 169 cm with a straight pull.   Loved them until I had them out in ~12-15" fresh.  Even at -2cm behind zero I was really fighting tip dive, there is jut not enough tip out there in front of me for any significant new snow.  It's a shame because they really are fun versatile skis but I bought them as resort powder skis so I'm going to have to try and sell them.  They have new attack 13 demo bindings on them.  Not sure if the size difference between you and I would make these work or not but if you decide that they are worth a try, I'd let them go at a good price.  If you go to the Blister review of the 174 and read through the comments there are several lighter folks who had no issues.  One person says that they are really not enough ski for anyone over 5'2" or so.  My experience was the same, at least at my weight and as a powder ski.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Powder Ski Waist and Length Recommendations for a Short Guy